Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Pompa v. SUPERIOR COURT IN & FOR MARICOPA, 931 P.2d 431.

28 citing documents.

Gray, ed.D. v. Abpe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Gray, ed.D. v. Abpe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Marianne N. v. Department of Child Safety 381 P.3d 264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Marianne N. v. Department of Child Safety 381 P.3d 264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Musselman v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Musselman v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Romley v. Daughton 241 P.3d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Romley v. Daughton 241 P.3d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Kenneth T. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 128 P.3d 773 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Kenneth T. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 128 P.3d 773 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Comm’n, ¶ 12, (“[Pjrocedural law relates to the manner and means by which a right to recover is enforced or provides no more than the method by which to proceed.”); , (procedural law describes the practice, method or procedure to enforce substantive law).
In Re One Residence at 319 E. Fairgrounds Dr. 71 P.3d 930 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Overruled In Re One Residence at 319 E. Fairgrounds Dr. 71 P.3d 930 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Agreeing with Division One’s P.2d 431 (App. 1997), we determined that, despite the failure of the appellant to serve the attorney general, this court had jurisdiction of the appeal and was empowered to determine the proper sanction for the appellant’s failure to comply with the statute.
Property Located at 6757 S. Burcham Ave. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Property Located at 6757 S. Burcham Ave. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
¶5 P.2d 431 (App. 1997), Division One of this court disagreed with 1988 Chevrolet, concluding that § 13-2314(M) is unconstitutional because appellate procedural rules promulgated by the supreme court prevail over conflicting statutes.
Pima County v. Hogan 3 P.3d 1058 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Pima County v. Hogan 3 P.3d 1058 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State Ex Rel. Napolitano v. Brown 982 P.2d 815 Ariz. 1999
State Ex Rel. Napolitano v. Brown 982 P.2d 815 Ariz. 1999
Martin v. Reinstein 987 P.2d 779 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Rodriguez v. Arellano 979 P.2d 539 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Rodriguez v. Arellano 979 P.2d 539 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Martin v. Reinstein 987 P.2d 779 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
We generally accept special action jurisdiction “only in those cases in which ‘justice cannot be satisfactorily obtained by other means,’ ” , ( , ), and may accept jurisdiction if doing so would conserve judicial resources.
Graf v. Whitaker 966 P.2d 1007 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Graf v. Whitaker 966 P.2d 1007 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Arizona Department of Public Safety v. Superior Court 949 P.2d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Arizona Department of Public Safety v. Superior Court 949 P.2d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Superior Court (Richard), , Vo, 172 Ariz. at 198 , 836 P.2d at 411 ; City of Phoenix, 158 Ariz. at 216 , 762 P.2d at 130 .
Encinas v. Pompa 939 P.2d 435 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Encinas v. Pompa 939 P.2d 435 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997